NC Homeowner shoots, kills burglar

[toreskha]

The homeowner had the right to walk into his home even while being burglarized. I agree with you. However, just because you have the means, doesn't mean you should. The homeowner made the decision to go into his home while it appeared that it was being burglarized - knowing that he might have to use lethal force. At this understanding, the homeowner is no longer protecting himself, but rather, his house. IF the homeowner had the intentions of protecting himself, he would not have went in the house. With that being said, the purpose of a CCW is for personal protection of "self." The homeowner went above and beyond what was necessary to protect himself, therefore, he might be charged with excessive force.

I can agree with you that he could have handled the situation in a way that more appropriately kept him out of a potentially bad situation. He should have called 911 immediately and withdrew to a safe position or to a neighbor's house. It's always a bad idea to get into a fight if you're not protecting yourself or someone else.

However, I think he will probably be ok in a legal sense. He certainly wasn't trespassing on his own property - he had a legal right to be there, and his attacker did not. If it went to trial, most juries would have a hard time finding against the homeowner in this situation. It may even precipitate a legislative motivation to adopt a castle doctrine, which prosecutors typically don't want to see. They'll probably just let this one rest quietly.

Florida has the castle doctrine, so homeowners can raid their own houses if they want - but I wouldn't do it unless I thought a potential victim might be inside.

[tattedupboy]

The homeowner went above and beyond what was necessary to protect himself, therefore, he might be charged with excessive force.

Not in Texas. Can't say about other states but I can tell you he would not be charged in Texas. God bless Texas.

Texas is the only state where deadly force can legally be employed in the defense of property. I'd like to see a BG try doing that there.

[FreedomsAdvocate]

Texas is the only state where deadly force can legally be employed in the defense of property. I'd like to see a BG try doing that there.

That is what the Castle Doctine is all about...last I heard, TX doesn't have it. I think 12 states now have it. Last I looked ( last week?) it surprised me that TX was not included.

I will look closer, as what you say makes more sense. Maybe they just don't call it that and the media is too stupid (DUH!) to understand.

[wuzfuz]

As I interpret the situation, THe homeowner had a legal right to occupy his house. the invader had no legal right to occupy that home. What is the situation in NC now, if a burglar breaks in, he now has possession of your house and you are helpless to remove him? Ridiculous. the homeowner entered and told the intruder to lie down. Instead, the intruder rushed the owner. At that point, the owner was in fear of his life or serious physical injury, and had every right under the sun to defend himself. He fired to stop the attack by a criminal who had forced entry into his hom and was in the process of attacking him. He called 911, which is what he is required to do. I really don't think they could get a jury to convict this man. If the DA has half a brain, he will decide it was a justified shooting and release the home owner and return his weapon to him.

[gpbarth]

That is what the Castle Doctine is all about...last I heard, TX doesn't have it. I think 12 states now have it. Last I looked ( last week?) it surprised me that TX was not included.

I will look closer, as what you say makes more sense. Maybe they just don't call it that and the media is too stupid (DUH!) to understand.

I thought in Texas, you could shoot anyone at any time in self-defense. Why would a place like the Lone Star State need a steenkin' castle doctrine? Sheez! Even in Florida, I can shoot someone on the public sidewalk if I feel threatened for my life or bodily well-being. I do - repeat: DO NOT - need to retreat. Of course, I can't shoot anyone who is retreating after looking down the barrel of my XD-40, either.

[Glockster20]

That is what the Castle Doctine is all about...last I heard, TX doesn't have it. I think 12 states now have it. Last I looked ( last week?) it surprised me that TX was not included.

I will look closer, as what you say makes more sense. Maybe they just don't call it that and the media is too stupid (DUH!) to understand.

My research shows 16 states. Texas was not included;

16 STATES ALLOW LEGAL USE OF DEADLY FORCE | Organized Crime Digest | Find Articles at BNET

[HK4U]

Texas does have it. It became law in 2007. I posted it on another thread.

[Glockster20]

Texas does have it. It became law in 2007. I posted it on another thread.

You are correct! My link is to a two year old page

[tattedupboy]

That is what the Castle Doctine is all about...last I heard, TX doesn't have it. I think 12 states now have it. Last I looked ( last week?) it surprised me that TX was not included.

I will look closer, as what you say makes more sense. Maybe they just don't call it that and the media is too stupid (DUH!) to understand.

Actually, Castle Doctrine just codifies not making it a requirement to flee before employing deadly force, and expands the list of places where people can do it without attempting to flee first. Regardless of where they are though, deadly force can still be employed only in the defense of life, not property.

[Red Hat]

Actually, Castle Doctrine just codifies not making it a requirement to flee before employing deadly force, and expands the list of places where people can do it without attempting to flee first. Regardless of where they are though, deadly force can still be employed only in the defense of life, not property.

That depends on your state and how the Castle Doctrine was written. In SC we can use deadly force in the defense of Life and Property.